BioEnergy Research

, Volume 5, Issue 1, pp 236–246 | Cite as

Estimating a Technically Feasible Switchgrass Supply Function: a Western Massachusetts Example



Compared to other renewable energy sources, available bioenergy supplies are relatively constrained by the land resource needed for production. Bioenergy costs can also be expected to increase if less productive lands are put into use, since production costs are likely higher on such lands. This study develops a method to estimate biomass crop costs at different delivered quantities. A geographic information system model is coupled with a crop-growth simulation model (ALMANAC) to provide information for an economic supply function. The method provides a high degree of resolution, appropriate for regional biomass crop research. The approach is particularly useful where no biomass crop industry exists, and/or where land resources are heterogeneous. An example of switchgrass supply potential in western Massachusetts is presented.


ALMANAC Biomass crops GIS Supply function Switchgrass 


  1. 1.
    Campbell E, Lobell DB, Genova RC, Field CB (2008) The global potential of bioenergy on abandoned agricultural lands. Environ Sci Technol 42(15):5791–5794PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    de Vries BJM, van Vuuren DP, Hoogkijk M (2007) Renewable energy sources: their global potential for the first-half of the 21st century at a global level: an integrated approach. Energy Policy 35:2590–2610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Deverell R, McDonnell K, Devlin G (2009) The impact of field size on the environment and energy crop production efficiency for a sustainable indigenous bioenergy supply chain in the Republic of Ireland. Sustainability 1:994–1011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Duffy MD (2008) Estimated costs for production, storage, and transportation of switchgrass. Iowa State University Extension, AmesGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Foster D, Motzkin G, Slater B (1998) Land-use history as long-term broad-scale disturbance: regional forest dynamics in central New England. Ecosystems 1:96–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gallo KP (2005) Evaluation of temperature differences for paired stations of the U.S. climate reference network. J Climate 18:1629–1636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Graham RL, English BC, Noon C (2000) A geographic information system-based modeling system for evaluating the cost of delivered energy crop feedstock. Biomass and Bioenergy 18:309–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hunt D (2001) Farm power and machinery management. Waveland Press, Long GroveGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kelty MJ, D'Amato AW, Barten PK (2008) Silvicultural and ecological considerations of forest biomass harvesting in Massachusetts. Massachusetts Sustainable Forest Bioenergy Initiative. University of Massachusetts, AmherstGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kiniry JR, Cassida KA, Hussey MA, Muir JP, Ocumpaugh WR, Read JC, Reed RL, Sanderson MA, Venuto BC, Williams JR (2005) Switchgrass simulation by the ALMANAC model at diverse sites in the southern US. Biomass and Bioenergy 29(6):419–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kiniry JR, Lynd L, Greene N, Johnson M-VV, Casler M, Laser MS (2008). Biofuels and water use: comparison of maize and switchgrass and general perspectives. New Research on Biofuels. Wright JH, Evans DA. Nova Science PublishersGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kiniry JR, Schmer MR, Vogel KP, Mitchell RB (2008) Switchgrass biomass simulation at diverse sites in the northern Great Plains of the U.S. Bioenergy Res 1:259–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kiniry JR, Williams JR, Gassman PW, Debaek P (1992) A general, process-oriented model for two competing plant species. Trans ASAE 35(3):801–810Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Landsberg H (1945) Climatology. Handbook of Meteorology. Berry FAJ, Bollay E, Beers NR. New York, McGraw-HillGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lovett AA, Sunnenberg GM, Richter GM, Dailey AG, Riche AB, Karp A (2009) Land use implications of increased biomass production identified by GIS-based suitability and yield mapping for miscanthus in England. Bioenergy Res 2:17–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Means RS (2010) Site work and landscape cost data. Kingston, RS MeansGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Parrish DJ, Fike JH (2005) The biology and agronomy of switchgrass for biofuels. Critical Rev Plant Sci 24:423–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Perrin R, Vogel KP, Schmer MR, Mitchell RB (2008) Farm-scale production cost of switchgrass for biomass. Bioenergy Res 1:91–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Peterson TC (2003) Assessment of urban versus rural in situ surface temperatures in the contiguous United States: no difference found. J Climate 16(18):2941–2959CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pimentel D, Herz M, Glickstein M, Zimmerman M, Allen R, Becker K, Evans J, Hussain B, Sarsfeld R, Grosfeld A, Seidel T (2002) Renewable energy: current and potential issues. Bioscience 52(12):1111–1120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Teske S, Biel S, Davies K (2009) Energy [r]evolution: a sustainable USA energy outlook. Greenpeace USA, European Renewable Energy Council, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Timmons D (2011) The potential supply of cellulosic biomass crops in Massachusetts. Resource Economics. Amherst, University of Massachusetts. PhDGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    USDA (2009) Land values and cash rents: 2009 summary. WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    USDA and Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture (2009) 2009 Machinery custom rates. HarrisburgGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Walsh ME (2000) Method to estimate bioenergy feedstock supply curves. Biomass and Bioenergy 18:283–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wehrspann J (2000) Breaking the speed barrier. Farm Industry News (March 31, 2000)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Williams JR, Arnold JG, Kiniry JR, Gassman PW, Green CH (2008) History of model development at Temple, Texas. Hydrological Sciences 53(5):1013–1029CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Massachusetts BostonEconomics DepartmentBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations